BlogLawfare is an increasingly emergent form of asymmetric warfare, which must be countered both tactically and strategically.http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/
Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:20:41 +0000Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Managementen-gbLawfare Project Letter Used to Defeat Discriminatory Boycott of Israeli Goodshttp://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/lawfare-project-letter-used-to-defeat-discriminatory-boycott-of-israeli-goods.html
http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/lawfare-project-letter-used-to-defeat-discriminatory-boycott-of-israeli-goods.htmlA national effort to push a referendum calling to boycott Israeli products was rejected on Tuesday night, signaling a critical victory for the campaign to counter the discriminatory and unlawful Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) in the United States. This attempt to discriminate against Israeli entities was rejected unanimously by the GreenStar Food Co-Op in Ithaca, New York. The Lawfare Project's analysis of relevant state law provisions applicable to commercial boycotts demonstrates the enormous potential to defeat the BDS Movement by force of law.

When The Lawfare Project was made aware of the GreenStar referendum, which was being pushed by bigoted anti-Israel activists including Angela Davis and Medea Benjamin (Code Pink), we produced a letter to Co-Op members informing them of potential liability pursuant to New York Executive Law § 296(13), which provides in relevant part:

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice (i) for any person to discriminate against, boycott or blacklist, or to refuse to buy from, sell to or trade with, any person,[1] because of the race, creed, color, national origin or sex of such person, or of such person's partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers, managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates, suppliers or customers, or (ii) for any person willfully to do any act or refrain from doing any act which enables any such person to take such action.

We further informed Co-Op members that New York courts have repeatedly acknowledged that the purpose of section 296(13) is to prevent and punish discriminatory business tactics implemented to harm individuals or corporations because of race, skin color, national origin, or other protected status. Section 300 of the law directs that all provisions of the state's human rights law, which includes section 296(13), shall be "construed liberally" to accomplish the legislation's purposes. As such, courts have stressed that section 296(13) must be read broadly to include and prohibit discrimination in all forms of commercial activity and business practices. Further, section 297(9) creates a private right of action for "[a]ny person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice," such that an individual claiming a violation of the statute may sue for monetary damages, injunctive relief, and civil fines to be paid to New York State.

We applaud the GreenStar Co-Op members for passing a Resolution to defeat this referendum and to send a message to BDS activists and supporters that this type of discrimination is both unlawful and intolerable.

The Lawfare Project will continue to fight for the civil and human rights of those persons and companies targeted by the BDS Movement, armed with an arsenal of state and federal laws.

]]>ben@thelawfareproject.org (The Lawfare Project)BlogThu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0000Lawfare Project Submits Investigative Report, "Hamas's Violations of International Law," to UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflicthttp://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/lawfare-project-submits-investigative-report-qhamass-violations-of-international-lawq-to-un-independent-commission-of-inquiry-on-the-2014-gaza-conflict.html
http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/lawfare-project-submits-investigative-report-qhamass-violations-of-international-lawq-to-un-independent-commission-of-inquiry-on-the-2014-gaza-conflict.htmlThe United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict requested submissions relevant to its mandate of investigating violations of the laws of armed conflict. Further to this request, The Lawfare Project submitted its investigative report "Hamas's Violations of International Law," detailing specific instances of violations relevant to the Commission's efforts.

The key findings of our report were based on the application of Customary International Humanitarian Law (CIHL), which is distinct from treaty law in that it is universally applicable, binding even non-state actors and non-signatories like Hamas. Our unique approach to the analysis of laws of war violations under CIHL has received significant praise from legal experts, organizations, and members of government.

Our analysis focused on Hamas's flagrant violations of the following rules of CIHL:

Rule 1: The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants

Rule 7: The Principle of Distinction between Civilian Objects and Military Objectives

Rule 62: Improper Use of the Flags or Military Emblems, Insignia or Uniforms of the Adversary

Rule 80: Booby-Traps

Rule 97: Human Shields

Rule 136: Recruitment of Child Soldiers

The Lawfare Project received communication from the Secretariat of the Commission of Inquiry confirming that the report was received and would be considered in the Commission's investigation.

We encourage the Commission to undertake an impartial and evenhanded analysis of the evidence it has received. We look forward to reading the Commission's conclusions in June 2015.

]]>ben@thelawfareproject.org (The Lawfare Project)BlogWed, 01 Apr 2015 14:50:34 +0000International Criminal Court politicizes itself by accepting the legal fiction of Palestinian statehoodhttp://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/international-criminal-court-politicizes-itself-by-accepting-the-legal-fiction-of-palestinian-statehood.html
http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/international-criminal-court-politicizes-itself-by-accepting-the-legal-fiction-of-palestinian-statehood.htmlThe Lawfare Project is deeply concerned with the recent decision by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open a preliminary examination into the "situation in Palestine," which follows Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's signing of the ICC's Rome Statute earlier this month.

During the inquiry, the Prosecutor will evaluate "issues of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice" in determining whether to launch an investigation into alleged crimes committed in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Because Abbas recognized the ICC's jurisdiction retroactively, the Prosecutor could investigate last summer's conflict between Israel and designated foreign terrorist organization Hamas (see The Lawfare Project's analysis of war crimes and other violations of international law committed by Hamas).

Regardless of the examination's outcome, this initial move directly undermines the ICC's legitimacy, revealing politicization rather than legal competence. Because statehood is a condition of jurisdiction under the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor's decision involved her finding that a "Palestinian state" actually exists. She did so based on the fact that the U.N. General Assembly voted in 2012 to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority from "non-member observer entity" to "non-member observer state." This maneuver, which followed unsuccessful attempts to achieve legally recognizable statehood via the U.N. Security Council, received widespread criticism because the Palestinians did not at the time meet the requirements for statehood under well-established international law, as was discussed in The Lawfare Project's article on the legal fiction of Palestinian statehood. Nor do they meet those requirements today.

Not only does the General Assembly lack authority to create states (and its resolutions are not legally binding), but nothing in international law suggests that the General Assembly's vote to upgrade the Palestinians' status should have any bearing on the jurisdiction of the ICC, an entity independent of the United Nations. The Prosecutor's willingness to expand ICC jurisdiction beyond the confines of the Rome Statute is of great concern, and her substitution of politics for law is indeed the epitome of lawfare.

]]>ben@thelawfareproject.org (The Lawfare Project)BlogThu, 22 Jan 2015 22:05:25 +0000First They Exiled the Jewshttp://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/first-they-exiled-the-jews.html
http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/first-they-exiled-the-jews.htmlPope Francis and Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople issued a joint statement bemoaning the dwindling presence of Christians in the Holy Land during the Pontiff’s November 23-28 visit to Istanbul. While both Christian leaders called for dialogue with Muslims, they condemned Islamic State violence. However, neither of them should be surprised by the mass exodus of Christians from Arab countries. The primary reason for emigration of Christians from their native lands is intolerant treatment by their Muslim fellow citizens. The unspoken but grim reality is that these Christians are second class citizens, or dhimmi, under Islamic law. The phrase “First they came for the Jews” seems appropriate.

This same intolerance by the region’s Arab Muslim populations had previously driven nearly one million Jewish citizens from their homelands. These Sephardim had roots in these countries, roots which predated the existence of Arab-imposed Islam by half a millennium. Most of these Jews were descendants of the Diaspora, exiled from Judea following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In 1948, the Diaspora Jews numbered about 850,000 in Arab states; now there are less than 10,000 in these same territories. In Iraq, for example, where there were about 140,000, you can count the number of Jews remaining one hand. In Libya, you do not need to count.

In an ironic coincidence, the United Nations declared this year as one where the international body will express its solidarity with Palestinian refugees, having just commemorated the 67th anniversary of the UN’s Partition Resolution on November 29th. Absent from official commentary and presumably from sentiment is any call from the UN for restitution to the Jews who were forced to leave their native countries by Arab states since 1947. Despite a full library of documentation which details the dispossession of property, denationalization of citizenship, arbitrary arrest, torture, and murder of Jews, there is no demand for an inquiry, no call for reparation, no plea to dispense justice for the forced exile of at least 850,000 Jews from their homelands.

Nevertheless, there is a sliver of hope as Canada has become the first nation to proceed with public hearings regarding this issue. There is also a proposed bill in the House of Representatives to do the same in the United States. However, there is a substantive difference between the Palestinians and the Jews. The former, for the most part, emigrated out of mistaken fear; the latter were driven out by their host governments.

Failure to apply human rights law where it is most needed is one of the most dangerous forms of lawfare. The UN continues to disproportionately focus on the Palestinian refugees, even going so far as to redefine the term “refugee” in the Palestinian context such that the number of Palestinian refugees has actually increased from 650,000 in 1949 to 6.5 million today. Meanwhile, attention is being siphoned away from the plight of real refugees, who are forcibly expelled from their homelands or forced to choose between fleeing and being slaughtered because of their faith.

]]>ben@thelawfareproject.org (The Lawfare Project)BlogWed, 17 Dec 2014 16:32:23 +0000Netanyahu’s Churchillian Speech at the United Nationshttp://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/netanyahus-churchillian-speech-at-the-united-nations.html
http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/netanyahus-churchillian-speech-at-the-united-nations.htmlSpeaking plainly and warning bluntly, like a biblical prophet, the Prime Minister of Israel’s address to the United Nations’ General Assembly was a masterful performance which calls to mind Winston Churchill’s prescient speeches in the 1930s about Nazi Germany’s growing threat to Civilization.

Eschewing any rhetorical device designed to soften his personal image or obscure the nature of his purpose, Netanyahu graphically connected the dots regarding the ultimate objective of Islamic terrorist groups- world conquest.

He lectured the delegates that though Shia and Sunni extremist groups war against each other, both are dangerous adversaries to existing international order. With sardonic sweep, he counseled that the former want to usher the world into a Messianic order with a 9th century focus, the latter with a 7th century orientation.

He stated that ISIS is like unto Boko Haram of Nigeria, al-Shabab of Somalia, Hezbollah of Lebanon, and al-Qaeda and that are all connected by the same root and should be viewed accordingly by the United Nations.

He then focused on the great danger that a nuclear Iran with its ISIS-like ideology would pose to Civilization, a threat, he stated that was more potent than ISIS.

However, it was Bibi’s recounting of this summer’s HAMAS/Israel Conflict which was the principal focus of his address. He lectured the UNGA on its failure to recognize that HAMAS is also ISIS-like in its final goal. Recognizing that the HAMAS propaganda offensive had gained some traction, the Prime Minister disassembled the terrorist group’s strategy.

Netanyahu reiterated his past arguments to disabuse the world of its moral equivalency assessments of Israeli and HAMAS behavior. His effort calls to mind Alan Dershowitz’s masterful debunking of several ignorantly uninformed and willfully incorrect accusations about Israel in his book “The Case For Israel.”

Dershowitz like Netanyahu raises the often repeated canard, which suggests moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and Israeli military responses. Both men deconstruct this assault by cataloging the Palestinian terrorist penchant for soft targets and indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Another issue which reflects superficial misunderstanding of the nature of HAMAS is the question posed by Dershowitz, “Why Have More Palestinians than Israelis Been Killed?” Last Summer’s 55 day military exchange between the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers and HAMAS re-invigorates this question, as there were far more Palestinians than Israeli casualties. Netanyahu portrays the cynical strategy of HAMAS which sites its missile launchers in civilian neighborhoods and orders women and children to remain in place to absorb the full measure of the IDF’s military response in order to depict Israel as purposely targeting non-combatants.

Dershowitz, on the other hand, accounts for the disparity in the number of casualties is in large part due to Israel’s superior intelligence gathering techniques, responsive medical infrastructure, and the many foiled suicide bombing plots by Israeli security services.

The Lawfare Project, headquartered in New York adds another important, legal dimension to this issue focusing on the time-honored “Just War” principle of proportionality. Lawfare Project Director Brooke Goldstein comments that the conscious conflating of the proportionality principle with the disparity in casualties between Israelis and Gaza-resident Arabs is misleading and manipulative. This disingenuous maneuver implies that in order for justice to be served more Jews had to be killed. This judgment explicitly militates against the right of Israel to defend itself.

Finally Netanyahu reminds the delegates that Israel has a history of three thousand years in the region and has the ability to maintain its presence and defend its interests. Dershowitz in his book meticulously elaborates on Netanyahu’s assertion.

“For more than 1600 years the Jews formed the main settled population of (what the Romans later called Palestine).”

And that even after mass exile and many conquests, “thousands of Jews managed to remain in its holy cities, especially Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron. There were also many Jews in Gaza, Rafah, Ashkelon, Caesarea, Jafa, Acre, and Jericho.”

]]>hina@thelawfareproject.org (The Lawfare Project)BlogFri, 03 Oct 2014 15:13:41 +0000Ban Ki-moon Overlooks UN Agency's Complicity in Hamas War Crimes Targeting Palestinian Childrenhttp://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/ban-ki-moon-overlooks-un-agencys-complicity-in-hamas-war-crimes-targeting-palestinian-children.html
http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/ban-ki-moon-overlooks-un-agencys-complicity-in-hamas-war-crimes-targeting-palestinian-children.htmlThe Lawfare Project expresses its deep concern at UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's failure to acknowledge a UN agency's complicity in Hamas war crimes carried out against Palestinian children. Last week, Ban spoke at a summit in Costa Rica, following the shelling of an UNRWA school in the Gaza Strip's Jabalia Camp. During his address, the Secretary-General callously neglected to condemn UNRWA, which, together with Hamas, is directly targeting Palestinian children with reprehensible violence.

UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) is the arm of the UN responsible for providing education to Palestinian children in Gaza. It is funded overwhelmingly by U.S. taxpayer dollars. Both prior to and during the current war in Gaza, UNRWA schools have been found to be working with Hamas in order to facilitate the recruitment of Palestinian children as child soldiers and human shields. The Lawfare Project, together with the Center for Near East Policy Research, co-produced the documentary film Camp Jihad, screened for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, which presents first-hand evidence of UNRWA schools being used to illegally indoctrinate Palestinian children towards violence.

No crime is more abhorrent than the premeditated murder of innocent children. Curiously, Ban has not once condemned Hamas by name--a designated terrorist group in the United States, Canada, European Union, Japan, and elsewhere--for its use of UNRWA schools as rocket depots and of UNRWA staff and students as human shields. Nor has he ever condemned UNRWA for enabling Hamas's recruitment of Palestinian children as child soldiers and suicide bombers.

UNRWA confirmed that Hamas fired into the Beit Hanoun area in northern Gaza where, on July 24, 2014, an UNRWA school was hit. An estimated 17 children and UN personnel were killed, and 200 others wounded.

UNRWA has publicly admitted to handing rockets stored in its facilities over to the "local authorities" in Gaza, i.e., Hamas.

UNRWA schools have reportedly been used as launching pads for mortar attacks against Israeli civilians.

A senior UN official, John Ging, confirmed that Hamas terrorists "are firing their rockets into Israel from the vicinity of UN facilities and residential areas," thereby putting UNRWA staff and students in harm's way and using civilians in Gaza as human shields.

UNRWA has permitted Hamas to use its schools as grounds for the recruitment and training of child soldiers and suicide bombers, and for the operation of militant summer camps for children.

UNRWA has openly taught Palestinian children from a curriculum that incites violence, encourages suicide-homicide bombings, espouses the concepts of martyrdom and jihad, and calls for the destruction of Israel.

An UNRWA health clinic that housed a Hamas terror tunnel entry shaft was built with explosives in its walls. The booby-trapped UNRWA clinic was then detonated on July 30, 2014, killing three IDF soldiers. The soldiers were working inside the UNRWA clinic to examine its structural integrity before sealing the Hamas tunnel under the building. Additionally, Hamas officials have reportedly admitted that, as of December 2011, at least 160 children had been killed in the tunnels. (Update: The booby-trapped building was reported to be an UNRWA clinic, but other reports have stated that the building was a former International Committee of the Red Cross clinic.)

UNRWA is aiding and abetting the premeditated murder of Palestinian children, the very population the agency is mandated to protect. It is inconceivable that UNRWA officials and staff members were unaware of the Hamas terror tunnel's entrance located within its own clinic. Or of multiple caches of deadly rockets located within three of its own schools. Or that, by handing over rockets to Hamas, they would subsequently be used to target civilians. Indeed, UNRWA officials and staff members are complicit in war crimes while teaching impressionable Palestinian children from a curriculum that not only glorifies violence but exposes them directly to Hamas for recruitment.

]]>hina@thelawfareproject.org (Hina Zaidi)BlogMon, 04 Aug 2014 20:46:57 +0000U.S. only member of UN Human Rights Council to vote against latest Israel "inquiry," calls it "biased and political"http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/us-only-member-of-un-human-rights-council-to-vote-against-latest-israel-qinquiryq-calls-it-qbiased-and-politicalq.html
http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Blog/us-only-member-of-un-human-rights-council-to-vote-against-latest-israel-qinquiryq-calls-it-qbiased-and-politicalq.htmlThe UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) decided on Wednesday to commence an international inquiry into alleged human rights violations committed by Israel during its military operation in Gaza. The Palestinian-drafted resolution calls for investigation of "all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law" in "Palestinian areas." Of the 47 council members, the United States was the only one to vote against the resolution, while 17 members (including Western European nations) abstained. The 29 members voting in favor included routine human rights abusers Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, Kuwait, Algeria, and Cuba.

Despite the United States' efforts to secure an immediate cessation of hostilities, U.S. ambassador to the council Keith M. Harper told members that “this resolution will not help us achieve that goal," denouncing it as a “biased and political instrument." Harper continued, "Once again, this council has failed to address the situation in Israel and in the Palestinian territories with any semblance of balance."

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf echoed Harper's opposition to "one-sided and biased inquiries of any kind." She added, "Unfortunately the Human Rights Council has often put forward one-sided documents."

Perhaps these statements relate to the council's inexplicable (yet unsurprising) refusal to acknowledge U.S.-designated terror organization Hamas's continued and indiscriminate launching of more than 2,000 rockets at Israeli civilians while simultaneously using Palestinian civilians as human shields, a double war crime under international law. Or perhaps they refer to the debunked Goldstone Report. The product of a supposed UN "fact-finding" mission concerning Israel's Operation Cast Lead, the report's flawed reasoning was dissected by leading attorney Trevor Norwitz before the key findings were retracted by its own namesake, Judge Richard Goldstone.

Although the outcome of this latest inquiry remains to be seen, it will likely serve both as legal patina for lawfare proponents to again mischaracterize Israel's defensive measures as war crimes, as well as to enable (and even encourage) Hamas's ongoing terror attacks.

In 2009, the United States joined the UNHCR--widely criticized for its excessive attention to alleged Israeli human rights abuses while all but ignoring rampant violations in places like Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, and Darfur--with the goal of transforming it into an effective champion of human rights. Alas, U.S. influence has proven insufficient to refocus the council. Concepts like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)-championed "defamation of religion," rather than real abuse and oppression occurring throughout the world, remain its causes célèbres.

The mainstream media has long avoided open discourse on one of the most controversial and important issues of our times: Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist terror sympathizers in the U.S. government. Case in point, the minimal attention brought to Mohamed Elibiary, a senior homeland security advisor with demonstrable sympathy for the Islamic fundamentalist cause. Elibiary has publicly voiced his support for Shukri Abu Baker, who was convicted in a criminal court for financing terrorist organizations including the likes of Hamas. Equally disturbing is Elibiary’s associations with the Assembly of Muslim Jurists, who actively seek the implementation of sharia law in the United States, as well as pursuing Islamic jihad against the State of Israel. Furthermore, he has made public his personal relationship with, and support for, the Muslim Brotherhood. Only one week ago, Elibiary tweeted: "America and yes I do consider the United States of America an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution. Move On!"

Even more worrying, however, is Elibiary’s ability to manipulate the policy of U.S. government and security measures in accordance with his questionable agenda. For instance, he sat on the committee that produced the Department for Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training guidelines, which (amongst other things) specifically discouraged training about lawfare. In the guidelines, security agencies are instructed not to train “premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them”—for instance, the theory that “Muslim Americans are using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law."

Except that thereis ample evidence supporting this theory! As has been reported and analyzed extensively by The Lawfare Project, Islamist organizations operating within the United States have filed countless frivolous lawsuits against individuals who bravely report on entities' ties with terrorist groups with the purpose of intimidating these speakers into silence. Ironically, the CVE guidelines are better suited to hinder, rather than strengthen, the U.S. government's ability to counter violent extremism.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the nation's Anti-Terrorism Act, enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. The court rejected constitutional challenges brought by three men, one of whom was the first person charged under the law and was convicted of collaborating in an unsuccessful 2004 plot to bomb London. In sum, the court's decision means that the law does not violate any constitutional rights, and it specifically dismissed the argument that the law too broadly defined terrorism such that it could ensnare innocent people.

A proposed U.S. military manual for troops deployed to Afghanistan suggests that "Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration," is to blame for the recent increase in attacks on coalition troops by Afghan forces. According to The Wall Street Journal, which reviewed the manual, the text directs soldiers to avoid discussion of a range of topics, including "advocating women's rights," "any criticism of pedophilia," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct," "anything related to Islam," or "making derogatory comments about the Taliban."

The draft constitution of Egypt's recently elected government has divided voters for drawing on Sharia law. "This constitution has more complete restraints on rights than ever existed before in any Egyptian constitution," said Sheik Yasser Borhami, a Muslim activist and preacher. The constitution's preamble states, "Equality and equal opportunities are established for all citizens, men and women, without discrimination," but critics charge it is a return to fundamentalist ideals, such as increased power to the clergy, traditional notions of women's rights, and intolerance for speech that insults "religious messengers and prophets." Also of concern is the vagueness of the draft's language, including prohibitions against violating the "public order" and "public morals," which could provide for the arrest of subversive voices without sufficient cause.

The "Istanbul Process," Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's "major transnational law initiative" with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), met this month in London for its third annual conference. Established in 2011 to "implement" measures countering speech that negatively "stereotype[s]" Islam and Muslims, the OIC has stated its view that the Istanbul Process will "help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions." Because the OIC has for more than ten years attempted to outlaw blasphemy of Islam -- which is protected under the First Amendment -- the partnership between Clinton and the OIC has sparked much controversy.

The judge who was presiding over the prosecution of Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan -- and who ordered that Hasan's beard be forcibly shaved -- has been removed from the proceedings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The appeals court specifically did not rule on whether the order violated Hasan's religious rights, as Hasan has argued, but based its decision on its finding that the judge did not appear impartial during the case. An army psychiatrist who killed 13 and injured 32 at Texas army base Fort Hood, Hasan was ordered to be forcibly shaved in September after growing a beard that defied military protocol. Army prosecutors also argued that the beard was an attempt to prevent witnesses from identifying Hasan at trial, which has been delayed for several months while the order to have him shaved was appealed.

The Russell Tribunal convened in New York last week for its fourth annual meeting, featuring a jury of veteran anti-Israel activists such as Angela Davis, Alice Walker, and Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd fame). The Tribunal, widely considered a publicity stunt, listened to indictments of Israel and reached a condemnatory verdict while declining to hear Israel's defense. Reporting for the Wall Street Journal, Sohrab Ahmari penned a review of the Tribunal that called attention to its hypocrisy. The Tribunal later presented its finding to a U.N. Council, notably stating that so-called "Israeli violations" of human rights are impossible without "the United States' economic, military, and diplomatic support."

Army Lt. Colonel Matthew Dooley has enlisted legal help to combat a negative army report that derailed his military career last May. Dooley, a 22-year military veteran and instructor at the National Defense University, received the negative evaluation after teaching a course on Islamic Radicalism deemed "against our values" by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dooley's legal counsel, Richard Thompson, President of the non-profit Thomas More Law Center, said that he is prepared to file a civil lawsuit in federal court if Dooley's negative Officer Evaluation Report, considered the industry's "Scarlet Letter," is not overturned by superiors.

Back in session since October 1, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to review of the Alien Tort Statute, a relatively obscure 1789 law, ultimately deciding whether U.S. judges can hear suits concerning human rights abuses committed abroad. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, more than 150 Alien Tort Statute lawsuits have been filed in the United States, alleging wrongdoing by both U.S. and foreign corporations in more than 60 foreign countries. The issue of alien torts was brought to the Supreme Court regarding corporations that aided foreign governments in committing human rights abuses (Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum). The Justices subsequently expanded the question, asking the parties to reargue the case and address whether U.S. courts were empowered to hear similar claims against individuals, in addition to corporations.

President Benigno Aquino III in September signed into law the Cybercrime Prevention Act, defining several new online crimes and prompting several petitions to the Supreme Court to declare the law as unconstitutional. Much of the law's opposition centers on its online libel provisions, which, according to Sen. Teofisto Guinfona III, could allow lawsuits against even those who only 'like' or 'share' a Facebook page. The new laws also concerns many because their vague language could allow the government to shut down websites and tap into online data without proper warrants.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has criticised a new set of guidelines from New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), calling them "unconstitutional." The new rules were announced after pro-Israel ads that discouraged support for militant Islam were posted in various NYC subway stations. The MTA initially declined to post the ads but was obligated to do so after the group responsible for the ads challenged the ban on free speech grounds. Under the new guidelines, the MTA is empowered to reject ads that it "reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace." Dershowitz rightly stated that the policy will "encourage violence" and give violent illegal activists "the power to censor" by engaging in or merely threatening criminal activity.